centuries; science assumed her proper rank; the arts, both useful and ornamental, began to be cultivated with new vigor; and Protestant society, at least, laid aside the austere sanctimoniousness of a religious grimace, put off the cowl of superstition, and appeared in the more pleasing costume of an open countenance, a smiling face, a generous heart and a more spiritual devotion.

Still, however, all error was not detected, discussed, and repudiated. The human mind, like the human body, takes but one short step at a time; and that step rather indicates the decrepitude and feebleness of age than the vigor and energy of youth. Unfortunately, Protestantism soon obtained favor at court, and immediately mounted the throne of the greatest empire in the world: and in doing this, she had to retain so many of the traditions and doctrines of the fathers as secured the favor of kings and princes, and flattered the pretensions of bishops, archbishops and their dependents, who in affection were wedded to Rome; whilst they abjured her power merely because it eclipsed and diminished their own. The leaven of popery, sir, still works in both church and state. hierarchies of England, Scotland, and Protestant Germany, alas! too fully substantiate the allegation. Oxford is not the only university, nor her tracts the only documents which show a professed sympathy with some of the bolder attributes and views of the Papal power. That sympathy is clearly evinced on the continents of Europe and America; and what strange involutions and evolutions may yet farther characterize its movements, the pages of the future alone can disclose.

The

The power of Protestantism in some important points of view is comparatively feeble-greatly feeble. Its strength lies in the leading truths of the system. Its feebleness is wholly owing to errors long cherished, and still sought to be maintained as fundamental truths, by many of its warmest friends and admirers. These errors make parties. For, while truth is essentially attractive and conservative, error is necessarily repellant and divisive. Numerous as the sects, that have impaired the Protestant influence and power, are the errors that have generated them. Every party has its truth, and, probably, its error too. For, even when truth makes a party, error not only occasions it, but infuses itself into the system. Good and wise men, of all parties, are turning their attention more and more to the causes and occasions of schism; and that, too, from an ardent wish to fathom the occult causes of so much discord amongst brethren; in the hope, too, of discovering some grand scheme of union and fraternal co-operation in the cause of our common christianity.

The last century terminated with the downfall of consolidated Atheism in France, after a reign of terror, the darkest and most desolating on the rolls of time. All Europe stood aghast at the awful spectacle, and saw in it developments of the tendencies of sectarian discords, that suggested to the reflecting and intelligent, the necessity of some very important changes in the social system. One of the results was, that the present century was ushered in with the formation of one grand Bible society, composed of various denominations, cherishing the truly magnanimous and splendid scheme of giving the Bible, without note or comment, to the whole family of man; so that every man might read in his own language the wonderful works of God.

This truly benignant scheme has, in various ways, already contributed greatly to the introduction of a brighter and a better era. The project of divesting the margin of the sacred writings of prophets and apostles of

the cumbrous inscriptions of sectarian tenets and traditions-the dogmata of all schism-under the insidious pretence and titles of Notes and Comments on the Sacred Text, has given a new impulse to the mind, because it has proposed the Bible to mankind in harmony with the great Protestant motto. A new and improved system of Hermaneutics is another happy effect of the attempt to make man, more or less, his own interpreter of the testimonies of God. The improvements in sacred criticism, and in biblical philology in general, have already elevated the present century above the last, as the sixteenth excelled the fifteenth in the grand developments of truth, and of the elementary principles of a new order of things.

No living man can fully estimate the exact momentum of the principles at work in his own time. The objects that obtrude upon his consideration are too near him to be seen in all their just proportions. Time, that great revealer of secrets and infallible exponent of the wisdom of all human schemes, must pass its solemn verdict upon every human enterprise before its proper character can be fully and justly appreciated.

The points of debate on the present occasion may, to some minds not conversant with such matters, appear to embrace points extremely frivolous and unimportant. The question, for example, of baptism, as respects its action, whether it shall be understood to mean sprinkling or immersing, is frequently made to assume no higher importance than that of a mere scuffle about the difference between a large and a small basin of water. It is, indeed, an elementary question; yet it may possibly have much of the fortunes of Christendom in its bosom. It stands to the whole christian profession as circumcision to a Jew, as hereditary descent to a British lord, or the elective franchise to an American citizen.

Let no one undervalue the points at issue in the present controversy. Let no one be startled when I affirm the conviction, that, in the questions to be discussed on the present occasion, the fortunes of America, of Europe and the world, are greatly involved. Can that be regarded by the mere politician (to say nothing of the philanthropist or the christian) as a minor matter which gives to the pope of Rome one hundred millions of subjects every three and thirty years; and that, too, without a single thought, volition or action of their own? Can any one regard that as a very unimportant ceremony, which binds forever to the Papal throne so many of our race, by five drops of water and the sign of a cross imposed upon them with their christian name? The omission of an h in pronouncing a word became, providentially, the occasion of the slaughter of forty-two thousand Ephraimites in one day; the conversion of an o into an i divided the ecclesiastic Roman empire into two great parties, which disturbed its peace, fostered internal wars, and exhausted its blood and treasure for a succession of several imperial reigns; and the eating of an apple brought sin and death into our world, and has already swept the earth clean of all its inhabitants more than one hundred times. Let no one, therefore, regard anything in- religion or morals as excessively minute, or unworthy of the highest conscientious regard. There is sometimes more in a monosyllable than in a folio. A Yes, or a No has slain millions; while a thousand volumes have been written and read without any visible disaster to any human being.

The greatest debate in the annals of time, so far as consequences were involved, was upon the proper interpretation of a positive precept. The fortunes, not of a single nation, of an empire, or of an age, but of a

world were staked upon its decision. The parties consisted of two persons: the word in debate was Die; and because of the misrepresentation of it one of the parties lost paradise, and gained labor, and sorrow, and death. In this world we have great little matters, as well as little great matters. To the former class belongs the affairs of kingdoms, empires and of all time: to the latter, individual purity, holiness, happiness. To infinite space, an atom and a mountain bear the same proportions. In the presence of endless duration, a moment and an age are equal. If, then, by a drop of water and the sign of the cross, Gregory XVI. sits on yonder gorgeous throne in the midst of the vatican, worshiped by more than one hundred millions of human beings; and if the Protestant Pedo-baptist churches in America annually increase more by the touch of a moistened finger than by all the eloquence of their seven thousand ministers; then, I ask, is not so much of the present discussion as pertains to that single rite of transcendent importance to this nation and people, whether contemplated in their ecclesiastical or political character?

In justice to my respondent and his church, I must distinctly state that this community are not at all indebted to me for the present discussion. It originated with our zealous and indefatigable Presbyterian brethren, who have ever been forward in the great and good work of religious controversy; and, as an apostle commands us to render honor to whom honor is due, we must award to them the honor of the present debate and all its happy influences. The present interview, when solicited by Mr. Brown, [Rev. John H. Brown, of Richmond, Ky.,] was indeed acceded to on my part with an express and covenanted understanding, that it was to be a frank, candid, full, and amicable discussion of the great points of difference between us; that each party was to affirm and maintain what it taught, and thus give to our respective communities authentic views of our peculiar tenets, so far as they may materially conflict with each other; and thus furnish the public with a book containing the numerous and various arguments by which our respective tenets may be assailed and defended. That the discussion might have all authority with the people, it was stipulated that, in case of a single combat, one person should be chosen as the oracle of the party, with whom I would enter into a formal debate on all these questions; and that other ministers should be present as helps and counsellors. I am happy in having the assurance that my friend [Mr. Rice] appears here, in consequence of that agreement, as the elect debatant, chosen by his brethren while assembled at synod-being not only one of the five persons chosen at the meeting of the synod, but also the one chosen by the other four, and commended to my acceptance by Mr. Brown, one of his electors, in the words following: "We have selected the man into whose hands we think proper to commit the defence of our cause. His standing is well known in Kentucky and out of it. We will not select another." To add to my satisfaction, he [Mr. Rice,] is also aided and sustained by a learned cohort of divines of high standing in the Presbyterian church; and not by these only, but doubtless by many others, present and absent. Such an array of talent, learning, and piety would seem to authorize the confident expectation that, if those tenets of his party from which we dissent can be convincingly maintained and made acceptable to this community, it will now be done.

In addition to all this, I am now assured that my friend [Mr. Rice] is not compelled into this discussion by the mere authority and importunity

of his brethren, but that he enters into the business as one that long and ardently panted to render some distinguished service to the church of his ancestors and of his adoption, and to deliver himself on the great questions now before us. It is our singular good fortune to meet on this arena a gentleman exceedingly zealous for the doctrines and traditions of his church, and who, for one year at least, if not for several years past, has been in habitual preparation for such an occasion as the present. So desirous of merited applause, and so untiring in his zeal and devotion to ancient orthodoxy, he has been in one continued series of conflicts, wrestling with tongue and pen-entering the lists with all sorts of disputants, Baptists and Reformers, old and young, experienced and inexperienced, and, in amicable discussion, breaking numerous lances upon the brazen shields and steel caps of such members of the church militant as either foreordination or contingency threw in his way-and on these very subjects now before us. Neither his devotion to the cause of truth nor his labors of love, have been confined to Kentucky; but, in his pious opposition to heresies and heretics, like one of old, he has pursued them into foreign cities. Nashville yet resounds with the praises of his zeal and the fame of his achievements in the cause of Presbyterianism. If, then, flaw or weakness there be in that series of arguments and evidences that I am prepared to offer on the present occasion, or if my facts and documents are not true and veritable, I have every reason to expect a full and thorough exposition of them. But should they pass the fiery ordeal of the intense genius and vigorous analysis to which they are now to be subjected, may I not, in common with those who espouse them, repose on them as arguments and proofs irrefragably strong and enduring?

The questions to be discussed on the present occasion are, it is conceded on all hands, not only elementary and fundamental, but of vital importance to every saint and sinner in the world. They alike enter into the peculiar essence and living form of the christian religion. Accurate and comprehensive views of them, not only promote the purity and happiness of the individual, but also conduce to the union of christians and the conversion of the world. So long as we have in the christian profession two faiths, two baptisms, and two Spirits, we shall have a plurality of bodies ecclesiastic arrayed in open hostility to each other; and by consequence, the whole train of evils and misfortunes incident to alienated affections and rival interests. I rejoice in the present discussion, because it strikes at the three main roots of modern partyism-the creeds, the baptisms, and the spirits of moral philosophy and human expediency. Before a holier and a happier era, we must resume the original basis of one Lord, one Creed, one Baptism, one Spirit. United on these we stand: divided we fall. These opinions, creeds, baptisms, and spirits must be repudiated. Hence the necessity of discussion. Either there must be a conviction of those errors and a repudiation of them, else an agreement to regard them as matters of opinion, as matters of forbearance, and take no account of them. One of these results is essential to union.

With these views and convictions, and with a supreme desire for holy union, harmony, and love in the truth, and for the truth's sake, with all them that believe, love and obey it, I consent unto the present discussion. The two baptisms, the human and the divine, are first in order. In distributing the subject into its proper parts, four questions arise: What is the action called baptism? who is the subject? what its design? and

who may administer it? Without further introduction, I proceed to the first proposition: and may the Spirit of all wisdom and revelation direct our deliberations, subdue all pride of opinion, restrain every illicit desire of human approbation, inspire our souls with the love of truth rather than of victory, lead our investigations to the happiest issue, and give to this discussion an extensive and long-enduring influence in healing divisions, in promoting peace, and in extending the empire of truth over myriads of minds enthralled by error and oppressed with the doctrines and commandments of men!

My proposition is, That immersion in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is the only christian baptism.

In the commission which the Messiah gave to his apostles for converting the nations, he commanded three things to be done, indicated by three very distinct and intelligible terms, to wit: matheteusate, baptizontes, didaskontes. Unfortunately, one of these three Greek words has become a subject of much controversy. While all agree that the first term may be literally and properly rendered "make disciples," and the last teaching them," the second, not being translated but transferred into our language, is by some understood to mean sprinkling, by others pouring, by a third class immersing, and by a fourth class purifying them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Fortunately, the meaning of any word-Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English-is a question not of opinion, but a question of fact; and, being a plain question of fact, it is to be ascertained by competent witnesses, or by a sufficient induction of particular occurrences of the word, at different times on various subjects and by different persons. All good dictionaries, in all languages, are made upon a full examination of particular occurrences-upon a sufficient induction of distinct instances and convey the true meaning of a word at any given period of its history.

The action, then, which Jesus Christ commanded to be done in the word baptizo, is to be ascertained in just the same manner as the action enjoined in matheteuo, or that commanded in didasko, its associates in the commission. We ask no other law or tribunal for ascertaining the meaning of baptizo than for ascertaining the sense of matheteuo or didasko. They are all to be determined philologically, as all other foreign and ancient terms, by the well established canons of interpretation. From a candid, judicious, impartial application of these laws, there is not the least difficulty in the case.

There is, indeed, less difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the word baptizo, than that of either of the other words standing with it in the commission; because it is a word more restricted, more circumseribed and appropriated in its acceptation than either of its companions; because, moreover, it is a word of specification, and not so general and undefined as matheteuo or didasko-making disciples," and "teaching them." It indicates an outward and formal action into the awful name of the whole divinity; and consequently, a priori, we would be led to regard it as a most specific and well defined term. The action was to be performed by one person upon another person, and in the most solemn

manner.

Besides, it is a most peculiar and positive ordinance. All admit that baptism is a positive ordinance, and that positive precepts, as contradistinguished from moral precepts, indicate the special will of a sovereign in